Manosphere Jordan Peterson - Internet Daddy Simulator, Post-modern Anti-postmodernist, Canadian Psychology Professor, Depressed, Got Hooked on Benzos

[Shpongoolio Trismegistus]

I think you're running into a rather common issue, in that you're taking mockery and criticism as being absolute. Though as I said it before, and I'll say it again, I like a lot of what Peterson has done and I think he's helped a lot of people, but I'll also laugh at him when he's being a retarded and claiming he hasn't slept a single night in over a month or spergs out about Disney movies. Remember this for your next psychology 101 course, or whatever it may be, a person can both be legitimate and a grifter as well as being intelligent in some regards and retarded in another, and I'm here to laugh at the retarded bits.

The general mockery I understand, he's definitely a goofy guy. But, consider the responses I've received so far. They're accusing me of being a fanboy, or seeing him as a father figure. This is not accurate, and there's no way that the posters could have validly deduced such a fact. This can easily be dismissed as "I was only pretending to be retarded", which I am willing to accept. However, if my questions cannot be answered cogently then what footing does such claims as yours have?

 

[RadioactiveMonkeyMan]

The general mockery I understand, he's definitely a goofy guy. But, consider the responses I've received so far. They're accusing me of being a fanboy, or seeing him as a father figure. This is not accurate, and there's no way that the posters could have validly deduced such a fact. This can easily be dismissed as "I was only pretending to be retarded", which I am willing to accept. However, if my questions cannot be answered cogently then what footing does such claims as yours have?

Clearly an intellectual. Let me break it down real simple.

JP gets known for making reasonable takes, and trying to encourage a positive male attitude. Then he makes a fool of himself, gets addicted to drugs, and packs his colon full of beef. Followed by going to motherfucking Russia of all places to get coma'd.

I enjoy his early years. He's still a hypocrite and engages in hilarious antics that are cow-worthy. Fair enough?

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

You'll speak when spoken to.

Wash your balls, son. They smell like shit.

 

[Synthetic Smug]

The general mockery I understand, he's definitely a goofy guy. But, consider the responses I've received so far. They're accusing me of being a fanboy, or seeing him as a father figure. This is not accurate, and there's no way that the posters could have validly deduced such a fact. This can easily be dismissed as "I was only pretending to be retarded", which I am willing to accept. However, if my questions cannot be answered cogently then what footing does such claims as yours have?

You write like a Python script imitating Onideus Mad Hatter

 

[Seasoned News Reporter]

I've been lurking since roughly 2013, so I've borne witness to an innumerable amount of exceptionally bland, and unfathomably autistic threads here on the farms. But this one is among the strangest respecting its tonality and content. So much so that I have now descended from the abyssal plains of dissociated observation for the purposes of inter-penetrative inquiry.

These following questions may seem as though through them I am intending to run you into a rhetorical trap, or discourage your thoughts, or even tacitly insult you, but rest assured I seek only to know, and not to judge.

1. What is the difference between merely sounding smart, and actually being smart? (this is one of the most common criticisms I have seen of Peterson here)
   
   
   
2. Who do you consider an intellectual authority on the subject matter Peterson tends to discourse upon?
   
   
   
3. Have you read Maps of Meaning, and can you describe what you think it's about?
   
   
   
4. What makes Peterson a grifter?
   
   
   
5. Would any of you describe yourself as communist, socialist, or anarchist?

1. The difference between being smart & sounding smart depends on wether peterson opens his mouth or not.

2. I consider Lucid Dreaming an authority on the subject.

3. He's a grifter because I haven't fucked his crazy daughter.

4. I describe myself as someone who thinks you're a retarded faggot.

 

[Shpongoolio Trismegistus]

Clearly an intellectual. Let me break it down real simple.

JP gets known for making reasonable takes, and trying to encourage a positive male attitude. Then he makes a fool of himself, gets addicted to drugs, and packs his colon full of beef. Followed by going to motherfucking Russia of all places to get coma'd.

I enjoy his early years. He's still a hypocrite and engages in hilarious antics that are cow-worthy. Fair enough?

As someone who's been here for a very long time, I simply disagree that he is a cow. However, I have no intention of interceding in your fun.

Anyone who wishes to answer my questions in earnest would have my gratitude, however.

 

[Retink]

The general mockery I understand, he's definitely a goofy guy. But, consider the responses I've received so far. They're accusing me of being a fanboy, or seeing him as a father figure. This is not accurate, and there's no way that the posters could have validly deduced such a fact. This can easily be dismissed as "I was only pretending to be retarded", which I am willing to accept. However, if my questions cannot be answered cogently then what footing does such claims as yours have?

People are calling you a fanboy because you came into a thread laughing about goofy pictures of Peterson while making fun of some of his retarded takes and decided to start asking flowery questions in hopes of proving that Peterson is very smart. I don't think anyone denies that he has had good takes, isn't a dimwit, and has authority in his field. That being said, simply being an authority doesn't mean you can't have shit takes within that field or do questionable things. You can even be a genuine person and a grifter all the same time, just look at Alex Jones, he probably believes in what he believes but at the same time he'll try to sell you boner brain pills. And no, it's not just the act of selling a product to turn a profit that makes one a grifter, it's the megamind brain enhancement super supplement from cave man dog jizz crap that makes it a grift.

 

[Shpongoolio Trismegistus]

People are calling you a fanboy because you came into a thread laughing about goofy pictures of Peterson while making fun of some of his retarded takes and decided to start asking flowery questions in hopes of proving that Peterson is very smart. I don't think anyone denies that he has had good takes, isn't a dimwit, and has authority in his field. That being said, simply being an authority doesn't mean you can't have shit takes within that field or do questionable things. You can even be a genuine person and a grifter all the same time, just look at Alex Jones, he probably believes in what he believes but at the same time he'll try to sell you boner brain pills. And no, it's not just the act of selling a product to turn a profit that makes one a grifter, it's the megamind brain enhancement super supplement from cave man dog jizz crap that makes it a grift.

I think you're oversimplifying it. I've skimmed the near entirety of this thread, and read many of the more detailed polemical posts. Peterson is a very well respected expert in the field of anti-social behavior, and his behavior is quite normal given the circumstances of his life. Part of my motivation for asking my questions is an observation that almost every single person in this thread is exhibiting mental attitudes that are precisely of the sort that would be most liable to project onto him a malicious, conniving, or fraudulent character. For example, you're equating (I assume?) Peterson's self-authoring program with Alex Jones vitamin scams. This is an absolutely preposterous analogy to anyone with a modicum of scientific education.

It feels like I've been quite reasonable.

The responses have been anything but.

 

[RadioactiveMonkeyMan]

As someone who's been here for a very long time

Doubt.

I think you're oversimplifying it. I've skimmed the near entirety of this thread, and read many of the more detailed polemical posts. Peterson is a very well respected expert in the field of anti-social behavior, and his behavior is quite normal given the circumstances of his life. Part of my motivation for asking my questions is an observation that almost every single person in this thread is exhibiting mental attitudes that are precisely of the sort that would be most liable to project onto him a malicious, conniving, or fraudulent character. For example, you're equating (I assume?) Peterson's self-authoring program with Alex Jones vitamin scams. This is an absolutely preposterous analogy to anyone with a modicum of scientific education.

It feels like I've been quite reasonable.

The responses have been anything but.

Double doubt. If you were here for any modicum of time, you'd have at least absorbed some of the proverbial "local culture" unless you're literally the most autistic person on earth.

 

[Lemmingwise]

2.) In almost all other cases, the object of hatred or ridicule is someone who is genuinely eccentric, insane, or literally incapable of self-reflection for one reason or another (80% of the time it's just a case of autism, or child abuse). Peterson's "antics" do not, in my opinion, qualify as anything other than natural given the context of his life, and both the unplanned and clearly unexpected ascent to fame he has experienced

Peterson is not genuinely eccentric? The man who expressed his opinion that ancient art depicting spirals are depicting DNA helix? The man who does lectures on the bible but can't answer if he believes in god, because he doesn't know what they mean by "god"? And of course the man who did a bad podcast with sam harrison and then came up with the excuse that he was at the tail end of 40 days of not sleeping because he had a glass of cider?

This is all natural in the contrxt of his life? Why?

In other words, very little of what's written here, in my opinion, is an accurate description of Peterson

It just means you hear descriptions that are at odds with your own. If you don't respond specifically to those who you think to be wrong, you'll never find out if
1. You are misunderstanding the person you are responding to
2. They know something that you don't
Or
3. You understand something that they don't

You presume it's # 3 each time and that is the luxury of lurkers; their opinions and thoughts aren't tested by fire.

I've been lurking since roughly 2013, so I've borne witness to an innumerable amount of exceptionally bland, and unfathomably autistic threads here on the farms. But this one is among the strangest respecting its tonality and content. So much so that I have now descended from the abyssal plains of dissociated observation for the purposes of inter-penetrative inquiry.

These following questions may seem as though through them I am intending to run you into a rhetorical trap, or discourage your thoughts, or even tacitly insult you, but rest assured I seek only to know, and not to judge.

1. What is the difference between merely sounding smart, and actually being smart? (this is one of the most common criticisms I have seen of Peterson here)
   
   
   
2. Who do you consider an intellectual authority on the subject matter Peterson tends to discourse upon?
   
   
   
3. Have you read Maps of Meaning, and can you describe what you think it's about?
   
   
   
4. What makes Peterson a grifter?
   
   
   
5. Would any of you describe yourself as communist, socialist, or anarchist?

As promised, honest answers

1. I think "sounding smart" is something completely unimportant. It's like wearing glasses. I am such a nerd. It is essentially fashion, for intellectuals. Usually it also means camouflage as smart, so something that is the opposite of smart, but only sounds like it.

Peterson says a lot of things to have an oddball, unusual angle to a subject. It's probably his biggest strength and weakness. There sometimes is a disingenuity to it, like the famous reza aslan fox news bit. It is also what helped propel him to limelight as he's aaying things people haven't heard before.

You said earlier you don't think peterson is eccentric considering the context. And of course someone in this thread posted he lived in the same neighborhood and saw flyers and such with defamatory lies and things like that, which I find believable. There are videos of people screaming in his face or defacing the old building that he's giving a speech in. Is that the context you mean? I don't see how those things result in some of the weirder things he's said.

His daughter is a good example she says the same kind of things, but without any of the more forethought that Peterson puts into it to make them pallatable ideas. For that matter l, neither does post benzo Peterson.

2. Considering his discourse is all over the place you can't find a single authority on it. Abortion. Make-up. The bible. Jungian psychology. Archetypes. Ways to live your life. Whether politicians should step down. Pronouns. Free speech. How could you ever find an authority on all of these subjects?

3. No, I have not read any of his books beyond a couple of pages. Probably in the 100s of hours of video content though.

4. Grifter is just a word for "someone who makes money personally on the internet or in media". It's just an easy insult people use, especially when they're sick of hearing the ads. Like Peterson selling rugs for 1000$ a pop. I don't use the insult much personally. I also buy the idea that the internet is just a hustle economy for a good part, so almost anyone making money online is a grifter. I suppose it also depends on the value/price.

5. All three categories are a threat to humanity. As far as I can tell there, for the politically involved, people attack peterson from both the right and the left in this thread.

 

[brahsparagus]

Lobster daddy's well-adjusted daughter ANNIHILATES SOYBOYS at Oxford Union today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ai1xpi8bW0

 

[Retink]

I think you're oversimplifying it. I've skimmed the near entirety of this thread, and read many of the more detailed polemical posts. Peterson is a very well respected expert in the field of anti-social behavior, and his behavior is quite normal given the circumstances of his life. Part of my motivation for asking my questions is an observation that almost every single person in this thread is exhibiting mental attitudes that are precisely of the sort that would be most liable to project onto him a malicious, conniving, or fraudulent character. For example, you're equating (I assume?) Peterson's self-authoring program with Alex Jones vitamin scams. This is an absolutely preposterous analogy to anyone with a modicum of scientific education.

It feels like I've been quite reasonable.

The responses have been anything but.

I'm not equating Peterson's course to Alex Jones's supplements, I'm just using Alex Jones as an example because it's an easy one to point to.

As for Jordan Peterson being a respected whoever in whatever field, that's great and all but I'm here to laugh at his stupid shit. Sometimes the laughter comes from taking some things with hyperbole and other times it's at face value. As for whatever nonsense diagnosis you're attributing to people here, I don't really care, people can hold their opinion about a topic but you should also keep in mind the context of where the topic is being discussed.

This is a web forum where people laugh at stupid behavior and drama without taking things too seriously for the most part, and here you are arguing with someone using a profile picture of anime girl in black face to celebrate black history month, about how some internet celebrity quack should be held in reverence and not mocked for his idiocy on a website that mocks everyone and everything. So I'll repeat once more; sir, this is a Denny's.

 

[Resident Evil]

Spoiler: Long Post

Y’all are saying a lot, and I get some of it, but I’m kinda illiterate to long posts so that’s my fault entirely.

I was just gonna post and say Jordan Peterson kinda reminds me of those old 70’s folks who sat around a bar reminiscing the simple things in life like having a Christmas tree, haunted by some terrible abuse or war where they lost someone or themselves, and try throwing out suggestions and life advice at every opportunity because they’re just so scared their will be someone just like them who goes wrong, and it’ll magically be their fault.

There’s this sternness and kind of sad desperation to it. I don’t mean like “Oh wow what a fucking loser” and more so “Man, are you okay?”

Maybe I’m schizo but any time I’ve decided to tune in it never sounds like he’s talking to an audience, but more like. Himself. All of himself, all the good and the bad and trying to face the parts of himself he’s ashamed and proud of and trying to apply it to others. It’s kinda like he tries building speed bumps and road signs for people.

I don’t agree with everything he has to say, but quite a bit I do.

I’m reading too deep into this, and maybe someone’s mentioned it, but the only way I can describe Jordan is terribly tired.

P.S that lobster meme was kind of funny for a day I guess.

 

[Shpongoolio Trismegistus]

I appreciate your response.

2. Considering his discourse is all over the place you can't find a single authority on it. Abortion. Make-up. The bible. Jungian psychology. Archetypes. Ways to live your life. Whether politicians should step down. Pronouns. Free speech. How could you ever find an authority on all of these subjects?

This has given me some insight into your motivation and mindset, thanks. I would ask you a follow question to this one: do you believe that experts exist, and if so, do you know of any subjects to which you believe there are experts?

Let's take for example, Archetypes. Do you believe there are experts within a field that researches such things?

 

[Ophelia]

If you admire someone and lack a sense of humor, don’t go into their lolcow thread. Especially if you have a monocle up your ass. You’ll just be annoyed.

 

[Lemmingwise]

do you believe that experts exist, and if so, do you know of any subjects to which you believe there are experts?

A bit disappointed you didn't answer my new questions from the first paragraph of my post.

I generally think the concept of "experts" lures people into the trap of trusting someone too much. It may have made sense in the past, but certainly not in the last 2 years of "trust the experts". A simple enough example is any IT department. They typically have a knowledge that others don't; they are experts. But having worked IT they lie all the fucking time. So the way to make IT do their job is to constantly pressure them. It's pretty much how I treat "experts".

For example, I don't know anything about microbiology. Someone came into the covid thread telling me it's almost impossible that covid is human designed. I asked a couple of tough questions. He tried to answer them and in doing the necessary research, conceded that it's not only possible, but very likely. Now, he still knows more about microbiology than I do. He is more of an expert than I am. But you're supposed to want evidence for everything.

Peterson is generally pretty good about that when talking about big 5 or IQ, because he cross references it to how predictive these tests are to lifetime income, proving at least these numbers aren't meaningless, an important part of any non-precise science like psychology. But only when he talks about his field, and even then, not always.

Let's take for example, Archetypes. Do you believe there are experts within a field that researches such things?

Probably not. Archetypes fall more into art than science, and like some of the maps of meaning, results in a kind of writing and knowledge that requires such imagination and subjective filling in the blanks, that we're not really talking about science or knowledge anymore, but about art. If you have any evidence for archetypes being substantially different than the 4 humors (like black bile) but for the mind, I'd love to hear it. That doesn't mean I rule out the possibility of the expertise; but unless it offers something that is useful, I'm always skeptical. Is there any way to test the validity? And if not, how do you know it's valid? And if it's untestable whether valid, how do you discern one person being more of an expert than another?

 

[Shpongoolio Trismegistus]

A bit disappointed you didn't answer my new questions from the first paragraph of my post.

Apologies, what questions were those?

Probably not. Archetypes fall more into art than science, and like some of the maps of meaning, results in a kind of writing and knowledge that requires such imagination and subjective filling in the blanks, that we're not really talking about science or knowledge anymore, but about art. If you have any evidence for archetypes being substantially different than the 4 humors (like black bile) but for the mind, I'd love to hear it.

"Probably" is an excellently chosen word, my friend. Your reason is not without you.

I would consider a great many authors and scientists as experts on the subject of archetypes. You are mistaken in apparently reducing them down to "nothing but" a facet of artistic expression. As for empirically derived evidence, I would direct you towards Carl Jungs works in Symbols of Transformation as a starting point.

So we're both clear on what we're talking about, I define archetypes thusly: archetypes are primordial, structural elements of the human psyche. They are equivalent to instincts. I would like to quote some descriptions of these objects by Jung himself

"Archetypes ... present themselves as ideas and images, like everything else that becomes a content of consciousness." - [On the Nature of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 435.]

"Archetypes are, by definition, factors and motifs that arrange the psychic elements into certain images, characterized as archetypal, but in such a way that they can be recognized only from the effects they produce." - ["A Psychological Approach to the Trinity," CW

"Psychologically . . . the archetype as an image of instinct is a spiritual goal toward which the whole nature of man strives; it is the sea to which all rivers wend their way, the prize which the hero wrests from the fight with the dragon." - [Ibid., par. 415.]

"We can never legitimately cut loose from our archetypal foundations unless we are prepared to pay the price of a neurosis, any more than we can rid ourselves of our body and its organs without committing suicide. If we cannot deny the archetypes or otherwise neutralize them, we are confronted, at every new stage in the differentiation of consciousness to which civilization attains, with the task of finding a new interpretation appropriate to this stage, in order to connect the life of the past that still exists in us with the life of the present, which threatens to slip away from it." - ["The Psychology of the Child Archetype," CW 9i, par. 267.]

You may consider an archetype as an instinctual pattern of behavior that is inherited as a consequence of your genetics. For example, many animals upon birth are compelled by instinctual (archetypal) forces to behave in specific ways. Sea turtles, for example, have an internal archetypal "image" comprised of affect (motivational significance), sensory conditions (sounds, sights, smells, sensations of the skin) that is purely inherited and not learned, that compels them towards the ocean. They also possess an archetypal instinct guiding them towards the surface of the sand under which they are buried. These archetypal "contents" are in a sense clustered together in "complex" relationships.

Humans have a great many of these also, and ours are phenomenally sophisticated. You are not incorrect in identifying art as a related topic, however. If this is a conclusion you've arrived at yourself then you should consider contemplating it further.

Art is, for many complex reasons, the birthplace of culture through the expression of symbols corresponding to archetypes which express themselves inside human fantasy and dream. So, archetypes are very often found infused within art, but are not merely a sub-section of it as a domain of human activity.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I would direct you towards Carl Jungs works in Symbols of Transformation as a starting point.

I'm fairly sure I have already read that.

edit: nope, I've read several Jung books, but not that one.

You may consider an archetype as an instinctual pattern of behavior that is inherited as a consequence of your genetics. For example, many animals upon birth are compelled by instinctual (archetypal) forces to behave in specific ways. Sea turtles, for example, have an internal archetypal "image" comprised of affect (motivational significance), sensory conditions (sounds, sights, smells, sensations of the skin) that is purely inherited and not learned, that compels them towards the ocean. They also possess an archetypal instinct guiding them towards the surface of the sand under which they are buried. These archetypal "contents" are in a sense clustered together in "complex" relationships.

Humans have a great many of these also, and ours are phenomenally sophisticated. You are not incorrect in identifying art as a related topic, however. If this is a conclusion you've arrived at yourself then you should consider contemplating it further.

Art is, for many complex reasons, the birthplace of culture through the expression of symbols corresponding to archetypes which express themselves inside human fantasy and dream. So, archetypes are very often found infused within art, but are not merely a sub-section of it as a domain of human activity.

I mean that's nice and all, but you're not really giving any examples or reasons why me putting it under the area of art falls short. What use exactly is these concepts of archetypical instincts and/or imprinting? What useful knowledge does it offer? How does it manage to go beyond being just a kind of astrology? How is it functionally different than just "instincts"?

But more importantly, what is the relation to the idea of "experts" that you asked me about? How does this relate to Peterson and this thread?

 

[Angry New Ager]

I've been lurking since roughly 2013, so I've borne witness to an innumerable amount of exceptionally bland, and unfathomably autistic threads here on the farms. But this one is among the strangest respecting its tonality and content. So much so that I have now descended from the abyssal plains of dissociated observation for the purposes of inter-penetrative inquiry.

Observe this selection of text—the tone, the word choices, and the overall lack of economy in expressing ideas. Note the bolded part, in particular.

What is the difference between merely sounding smart, and actually being smart?

[see above for illustration]

Judging by your attitude and writing style, you haven't figured that one out and applied it to yourself yet.

 

[Shpongoolio Trismegistus]

I'm fairly sure I have already read that.

edit: nope, I've read several Jung books, but not that one.



I mean that's nice and all, but you're not really giving any examples or reasons why me putting it under the area of art falls short. What use exactly is these concepts of archetypical instincts and/or imprinting? What useful knowledge does it offer? How does it manage to go beyond being just a kind of astrology? How is it functionally different than just "instincts"?

But more importantly, what is the relation to the idea of "experts" that you asked me about? How does this relate to Peterson and this thread?

Firstly, art as an activity is an expression of contents of the mind. An equivalent argument to yours may run something like "Love is nothing but art". An archetype is a subjective experience, after all.

Secondly, you've read several of Jungs books,? I find that difficult to square with your lack of knowledge of archetypes.